Please unbreak kdeplasma-addons

[Albert Astals Cid]

El Dimarts, 15 de gener de 2013, a les 17:51:21, Weng Xuetian va escriure:
> On Tuesday 15 January 2013 23:40:29，Albert Astals Cid :
> > El Dimarts, 15 de gener de 2013, a les 17:22:08, Weng Xuetian va escriure:
> > > On Monday 14 January 2013 21:01:47，Albert Astals Cid :
> > > > Note: I'm not subscribed to plasma-devel, keep me in CC
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Weng, it seems you broke the build of kdeplasma-addons with
> > > > 
> > > >   http://build.kde.org/view/FAILED/job/kdeplasma-addons_stable/101/cha
> > > >   ng
> > > >   es
> > > > 
> > > > Error at
> > > > 
> > > >   http://build.kde.org/view/FAILED/job/kdeplasma-addons_stable/101/con
> > > >   so
> > > >   le
> > > > 
> > > > Can you please fix it?
> > > > 
> > > > Also i know nothing about ibus nor the kimpanel backends, but
> > > > 
> > > >   http://build.kde.org/view/FAILED/job/kdeplasma-addons_stable/101/cha
> > > >   ng
> > > >   es
> > > > 
> > > > seems like a quite big-ish change for a ReleaseCandidate state.
> > > > 
> > > > Can anyone confirm this is OK or should it be reverted and left only
> > > > in
> > > > master?
> > > > 
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > 
> > > >   Albert
> > > 
> > > Sorry for ignore the mail.. I seems missed this one.
> > > 
> > > I have not much choice do this change since it's broken by outside
> > > dependency (new version released during rc time). I also don't want to
> > > change it so late by now. But still I would rather merge it or leave
> > > complete broken.
> > > 
> > > compile error ought to be fixed by now, and ibus on server need upgrade
> > > to
> > > at least 1.4.2.
> > > 
> > > http://commits.kde.org/kdeplasma-
> > > addons/078a7fcf641ef5f1d94c375be6730927f3e87c00
> > 
> > This looks like a radical increase in the dependency at the last minute,
> > e.g. the latest released Ubuntu does not have ibus 1.4.2
> > 
> > I don't understand why a new release broke our existing code for old ibus.
> > 
> > Or do you mean the new ibus did not work with our code?
> 
> Yes, especially it just compiles but not work at all, that's the reason why
> I notice it a little bit late.
> 
> Your suggestion make sense.. I can revert it and keep the new code in a
> different branch for those who might need it (fedora, fox example).

Is there any chance we can have both old and new in there? I recognize the 
need to work with new releases too, how much work would be to have the old + 
the new code inside? Is it even possible? Maybe it's something we can target 
for 4.10.1? Or even 4.10.0?

Cheers,
  Albert

> 
> Regards
> Xuetian